Improving serrated adenoma detection rate in the colon by electronic chromoendoscopy and distal attachment: systematic review and meta-analysis

Use of a Novel Artificial Intelligence System Leads to the Detection of Significantly Higher Number of Adenomas During Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Results From a Large, Prospective, US Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) has recently been proposed as a quality measure for colonoscopy. We evaluated the impact of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system, compared with standard high-definition colonoscopy, for APC measurement.

METHODS

This was a US-based, multicenter, prospective randomized trial examining a novel AI detection system (EW10-EC02) that enables a real-time colorectal polyp detection enabled with the colonoscope (CAD-EYE). Eligible average-risk subjects (45 years or older) undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to undergo either CAD-EYE-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) or conventional colonoscopy (CC). Modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all patients who completed colonoscopy with the primary outcome of APC. Secondary outcomes included positive predictive value (total number of adenomas divided by total polyps removed) and adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

In modified intention-to-treat analysis, of 1,031 subjects (age: 59.1 ± 9.8 years; 49.9% male), 510 underwent CAC vs 523 underwent CC with no significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, or colonoscopy indication between the 2 groups. CAC led to a significantly higher APC compared with CC: 0.99 ± 1.6 vs 0.85 ± 1.5, P = 0.02, incidence rate ratio 1.17 (1.03-1.33, P = 0.02) with no significant difference in the withdrawal time: 11.28 ± 4.59 minutes vs 10.8 ± 4.81 minutes; P = 0.11 between the 2 groups. Difference in positive predictive value of a polyp being an adenoma among CAC and CC was less than 10% threshold established: 48.6% vs 54%, 95% CI -9.56% to -1.48%. There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (46.9% vs 42.8%), advanced adenoma (6.5% vs 6.3%), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (12.9% vs 10.1%), and polyp detection rate (63.9% vs 59.3%) between the 2 groups. There was a higher polyp per colonoscopy with CAC compared with CC: 1.68 ± 2.1 vs 1.33 ± 1.8 (incidence rate ratio 1.27; 1.15-1.4; P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Use of a novel AI detection system showed to a significantly higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy compared with conventional high-definition colonoscopy without any increase in colonoscopy withdrawal time, thus supporting the use of AI-assisted colonoscopy to improve colonoscopy quality ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04979962).

Trends in Detection of Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesions Over a Decade in a Community-Based Healthcare System

INTRODUCTION

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an accepted benchmark for screening colonoscopy. Factors driving ADR and its relationship with sessile serrated lesions detection rate (SSLDR) over time remain unclear. We aim to explore patient, physician, and procedural influences on ADR and SSLDR trends.

METHODS

Using a large healthcare system in northern California from January 2010 to December 2020, a total of 146,818 screening colonoscopies performed by 33 endoscopists were included. ADR and SSLDR were calculated over time using natural language processing. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odd ratios of patient demographics, physician attributes, and procedural details over time.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2020, ADR rose from 19.4% to 44.4%, whereas SSLDR increased from 1.6% to 11.6%. ADR increased by 2.7% per year (95% confidence interval 1.9%-3.4%), and SSLDR increased by 1.0% per year (95% confidence interval 0.8%-1.2%). Higher ADR was associated with older age, male sex, higher body mass index, current smoker, higher comorbidities, and high-risk colonoscopy. By contrast, SSLDR was associated with younger age, female sex, white race, and fewer comorbidities. Patient and procedure characteristics did not significantly change over time ( P -interaction >0.05). Longer years in practice and male physician were associated with lower ADR and SSLDR in 2010, but significantly attenuated over time ( P -interaction <0.05).

DISCUSSION

Both ADR and SSLDR have increased over time. Patient and procedure factors did not significantly change over time. Male endoscopist and longer years in practice had lower initial ADR and SSLDR, but significantly lessened over time.

Comparison of Artificial Intelligence With Other Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate for Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis have demonstrated improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colonoscopy with artificial intelligence (AI) compared with high-definition (HD) colonoscopy without AI. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all RCTs to assess the impact of AI compared with other endoscopic interventions aimed at increasing ADR such as distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed through May 6, 2022, to include RCTs comparing ADR for any endoscopic intervention mentioned above. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach and random effects model. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated for proportional outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 94 RCTs with 61,172 patients (mean age 59.1±5.2 y, females 45.8%) and 20 discrete study interventions were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated significantly improved ADR for AI compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.06 to 1.66), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.40), endocap (RR: 1.32, CI: 1.17 to 1.50), endocuff (RR: 1.19, CI: 1.04 to 1.35), endocuff vision (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.13 to 1.41), endoring (RR: 1.30, CI: 1.10 to 1.52), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.09 to 1.46), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR: 1.40, CI: 1.19 to 1.65), HD (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.28 to 1.54), linked color imaging (RR: 1.21, CI: 1.08 to 1.36), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.18 to 1.48), water exchange (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.42), and water immersion (RR: 1.47, CI: 1.19 to 1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

AI demonstrated significantly improved ADR when compared with most endoscopic interventions. Future RCTs directly assessing these associations are encouraged.

Artificial intelligence for colorectal neoplasia detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy holds the potential to enhance adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates (AMRs). However, varied outcomes have been observed across studies. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of employing AI-aided systems during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords, a comprehensive electronic literature search was performed of the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases from the inception of each database until October 04, 2023, in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted with standard colonoscopy for detecting colorectal neoplasia. Primary outcomes included AMR, ADR, and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC). Secondary outcomes comprised the poly missed detection rate (PMR), poly detection rate (PDR), and poly detected per colonoscopy (PPC). We utilized random-effects meta-analyses with Hartung-Knapp adjustment to consolidate results. The prediction interval (PI) and I2 statistics were utilized to quantify between-study heterogeneity. Moreover, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023428658).

FINDINGS

This study encompassed 33 trials involving 27,404 patients. Those undergoing AI-aided colonoscopy experienced a significant decrease in PMR (RR, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.294-0.768; I2 = 87.49%) and AMR (RR, 0.495; 95% CI, 0.390-0.627; I2 = 48.76%). Additionally, a significant increase in PDR (RR, 1.238; 95% CI, 1.158-1.323; I2 = 81.67%) and ADR (RR, 1.242; 95% CI, 1.159-1.332; I2 = 78.87%), along with a significant increase in the rates of PPC (IRR, 1.388; 95% CI, 1.270-1.517; I2 = 91.99%) and APC (IRR, 1.390; 95% CI, 1.277-1.513; I2 = 86.24%), was observed. This resulted in 0.271 more PPCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 65.61%) and 0.202 more APCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 68.15%).

INTERPRETATION

AI-aided colonoscopy significantly enhanced the detection of colorectal neoplasia detection, likely by reducing the miss rate. However, future studies should focus on evaluating the cost-effectiveness and long-term benefits of AI-aided colonoscopy in reducing cancer incidence.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Heilongjiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LH2023H096), the Postdoctoral research project in Heilongjiang Province (LBH-Z22210), the National Natural Science Foundation of China's General Program (82072640) and the Outstanding Youth Project of Heilongjiang Natural Science Foundation (YQ2021H023).

Narrow Band Imaging versus White Light for the Detection of Sessile Serrated Colorectal Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer. The detection of pre-malignant lesions by colonoscopy is associated with reduced CRC incidence and mortality. Narrow band imaging has shown promising but conflicting results for the detection of serrated lesions.

Methods

We performed a randomized clinical trial to compare the mean detection of serrated lesions and hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm with NBI or high-definition white light (HD-WL) withdrawal. We also compared all sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), adenoma, and polyp prevalence and rates.

Results

Overall, 782 patients were randomized (WL group 392 patients; NBI group 390 patients). The average number of serrated lesions and hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm detected per colonoscopy (primary endpoint) was similar between the HD-WL and NBI group (0.118 vs. 0.156, p = 0.44). Likewise, the adenoma detection rate (55.2% vs. 53.2%, p = 0.58) and SSL detection rate (6.8% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.502) were not different between the two study groups. Withdrawal time was higher in the NBI group (10.88 vs. 9.47 min, p = 0.004), with a statistically nonsignificant higher total procedure time (20.97 vs. 19.30 min, p = 0.052).

Conclusions

The routine utilization of narrow band imaging does not improve the detection of serrated class lesions or any pre-malignant lesion and increases the withdrawal time.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Performance and attitudes toward real-time computer-aided polyp detection during colonoscopy in a large tertiary referral center in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-aided detection (CADe) has been shown to improve polyp detection in clinical trials. Limited data exist on the impact, utilization, and attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy in daily clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved CADe device for polyp detection in the United States and the attitudes toward its implementation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing colonoscopy at a tertiary center in the United States before and after a real-time CADe system was made available. The decision to activate the CADe system was at the discretion of the endoscopist. An anonymous survey was circulated among endoscopy physicians and staff at the beginning and conclusion of the study period regarding their attitudes toward AI-assisted colonoscopy.

RESULTS

CADe was activated in 52.1% of cases. Compared with historical control subjects, there was no statistically significant difference in adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.08 vs 1.04, P = .65), even after excluding diagnostic and therapeutic indications and cases where CADe was not activated (1.27 vs 1.17, P = .45). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR), median procedure, and withdrawal times. Survey results demonstrated mixed attitudes toward AI-assisted colonoscopy, of which main concerns were high number of false-positive signals (82.4%), high level of distraction (58.8%), and impression it prolonged procedure time (47.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

CADe did not improve adenoma detection in daily practice among endoscopists with high baseline ADRs. Despite its availability, AI-assisted colonoscopy was only activated in half of the cases, and multiple concerns were raised by staff and endoscopists. Future studies will help elucidate the patients and endoscopists that would benefit most from AI-assisted colonoscopy.

Melanosis coli: a contrast effect or an oncogenic effect? A large-scale retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Melanosis coli is characterized by brown mucosa with pigmentation. Studies have showed an increased adenoma detection rate in melanosis patients, whether it is caused by a contrast effect or an oncogenic effect is still controversial. The detection of serrated polys in melanosis patients remains unknown.

AIMS

The study aimed to clarify the correlation of adenoma detection rate with melanosis coli and discuss outcomes in less-experienced endoscopists. Serrated polyp detection rate was also been investigated.

METHODS

A total of 2150 patients and 39,630 controls were enrolled. A propensity score matching method was used to balance covariates between the two groups. The detection of polyps, adenomas, serrated polyps, and their features was analyzed.

RESULTS

The polyp detection rate (44.65% vs 41.01%, P = 0.005) and adenoma detection rate (30.34% vs 23.92%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher, and the serrated polyp detection rate (0.93% vs 1.58%, P = 0.033) was significantly lower in melanosis coli. The percentage of low-risk adenomas (44.60% vs 39.16%, P < 0.001) and polyps with 6 to 10 mm in size (20.16% vs 16.21%, P < 0.001) were higher in melanosis coli. The detection of large serrated polyps was lower (0.11% vs 0.41%, P = 0.026) in melanosis coli.

CONCLUSION

Melanosis coli correlates with an increased adenoma detection rate. The detection of large serrated polyps was lower in melanosis patients. Melanosis coli may not be considered a precancerous lesion.

Colorectal sessile serrated lesion detection using linked-color imaging versus narrow-band imaging: a parallel randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

 Previous studies have reported the effectiveness of narrow-band imaging (NBI) and linked-color imaging (LCI) in improving the detection of colorectal neoplasms. There has however been no direct comparison between LCI and NBI in the detection of colorectal sessile serrated lesions (SSLs). The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of LCI and NBI in detecting colorectal SSLs.

METHODS

 A prospective, parallel, randomized controlled trial was conducted. The participants were randomly assigned to the LCI or NBI arms. The primary end point was the SSL detection rate (SDR).

RESULTS

 406 patients were involved; 204 in the LCI arm and 202 in the NBI arm. The total polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and SDR were 54.2 %, 38.7 %, and 10.8%, respectively. The SDR was not significantly different between the LCI and NBI arms (12.3 % vs. 9.4 %; P = 0.36). The differences in the detection rate and the per-patient number of polyps, adenomas, diminutive lesions, and flat lesions between LCI and NBI also were not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis showed that LCI and NBI were not independent factors associated with SDR, whereas Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95 %CI 1.03-1.76; P = 0.03), withdrawal time (OR 1.13, 95 %CI 1.00-1.26; P = 0.04), and operator experience (OR 3.73, 95 %CI 1.67-8.32; P = 0.001) were independent factors associated with SDR.

CONCLUSIONS

 LCI and NBI are comparable for SSL detection, as well as for the detection of polyps and adenomas.

The effect of the endoscopic device Endocuff™/Endocuff vision™ on quality standards in colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIM

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality measure, with a high ADR reflecting high-quality colonoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of Endocuff™/Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) on ADR and other clinical, patient and resource-use outcomes.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for full papers reporting randomized studies comparing EAC with SC. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes comprised key polyp/adenoma detection, procedure-related, patient-related and health economic measures. Random effects meta-analyses provided pooled estimates of outcomes [risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI)].

RESULTS

Twelve parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three crossover RCTs with data on 9140 patients were included. EAC significantly increased the ADR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09-1.29), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP) (MD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.33), polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30) and mean polyps per procedure (MPP) (MD 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-0.63) versus SC. EAC significantly increased segmental PDR versus SC in the sigmoid (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.64-2.49), transverse (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09-2.42), ascending (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.41) and caecal segments (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.29-2.82). Procedure-related variables did not differ between arms. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of health economic or patient-centred outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

EAC increased ADR, MAP, PDR and MPP versus SC without detrimental effects on procedure measures. Cost-effectiveness and patient experience data are lacking and would be valuable to inform practice recommendations.

Does i-scan improve adenoma detection rate compared to high-definition colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Recent studies evaluated the impact of i-scan in improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared to high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. We aimed to systematically review and analyze the impact of this technique. Methods  A thorough search of the following databases was undertaken: PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science. Full-text RCTs and cohort studies directly comparing i-scan and HD colonoscopy were deemed eligible for inclusion. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled and compared using random effects model and DerSimonian-Laird approach. For each outcome, relative risk (RR), 95 % confidence interval (CI), and P value was generated. P  < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results  A total of five studies with six arms were included in this analysis. A total of 2620 patients (mean age 58.6 ± 7.2 years and female proportion 44.8 %) completed the study and were included in our analysis. ADR was significantly higher with any i-scan (RR: 1.20, [CI: 1.06-1.34], P  = 0.003) compared to HD colonoscopy. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that ADR was significantly higher using i-scan with surface and contrast enhancement only (RR: 1.25, [CI: 1.07-1.47], P  = 0.004). Conclusions  i-scan has the potential to increase ADR using the surface and contrast enhancement method. Future studies evaluating other outcomes of interest such as proximal adenomas and serrated lesions are warranted.

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.

Visibility evaluation of colorectal lesion using texture and color enhancement imaging with video

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Adenoma and serrated lesion detection with distal attachment in screening colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important measure of quality in colonoscopy, but little is known about the detection rate of serrated lesions (SLDR). To improve ADR, Endocuff Vision (EV) can be used. Studies have shown differing results as to the effect on ADR; an effect on SLDR has not been shown. To investigate the effect of Endocuff Vision on ADR in a screening population, this randomized controlled open label trial with concealed allocation was performed. Randomization to trial group was carried out by the endoscopist using prepared numbered envelopes.

METHODS

Patients referred as part of the national bowel screening program at Regional Hospital Herning, Denmark were recruited and allocated to one of two groups: Endocuff Vision colonoscopy (EVC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). Outcomes were ADR, mean number, site, and size of lesions per procedure. SLDR as outcome was added after inclusion had begun.

RESULTS

A total of 1178 participants were included, with 1166 (EVC 583 and SC 583) available for analysis. There was no clinical relevant difference in ADR (59.2% [CI 55.1; 63.1] v 60.5% [CI 56.5; 64.4]) or SLDR (13.0% [CI 10.5; 16.0] v 10.3% [CI 8.0; 13.0]) between groups. More serrated lesions were found per procedure (MSP) (0.2 v 0.1, IRR 57% [CI 17; 109]. Removal rate of EV was similar in the two study groups.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant effects of the use of Endocuff Vision on ADR, when compared to standard colonoscopy, but more serrated lesions were detected in the Endocuff group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT04651062.

Enhancing polyp detection: technological advances in colonoscopy imaging

The detection and removal of polyps at colonoscopy is core to the current colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention strategy. However, colonoscopy is flawed with a well described miss rate and variability in detection rates associated with incomplete protection from CRC. Consequently, there is significant interest in techniques and technologies which increase polyp detection with the aim to remedy colonoscopy's ills. Technologic advances in colonoscope imaging are numerous and include; increased definition of imaging, widening field of view, virtual technologies to supplant conventional chromocolonoscopy (CC) and now computer assisted detection. However, despite nearly two decades of technologic advances, data on gains in detection from individual technologies have been modest at best and heterogenous and conflicted as a rule. This state of detection technology science is exacerbated by use of relatively blunt metrics of improvement without consensus, the myopic search for gains over single generations of technology improvement and an unhealthy focus on adenomatous lesions. Yet there remains cause for optimism as detection gains from new technology, while small, may still improve CRC prevention. The technologies are also readily available in current generation colonoscopes and have roles beyond simply detection such as lesion characterization, further improving their worth. Coupled with the imminent expansion of computer assisted detection the detection future from colonoscope imaging advances looks bright. This review aims to cover the major imaging advances and evidence for improvement in polyp detection.

Do Water-aided Techniques Improve Serrated Polyp Detection Rate During Colonoscopy?: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The utility of water-aided techniques (WT): water exchange (WE) and water immersion (WI) have been studied extensively in the literature for improving colonoscopy outcome metrics such as adenoma detection rate. Serrated polyps owing to their location and appearance have a high miss rate. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing WT with the standard gas-assisted (GA) method to determine if there was any impact on serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) and sessile serrated polyp detection rate.

METHODS

The following databases were queried for this systematic review: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences. The authors only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was SPDR and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate and cecal intubation rate. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for each outcome. A P-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 4 RCTs (5 arms) with 5306 patients (2571 in the GA group and 2735 in the WT group) were included. The SPDR was significantly increased for the WT group compared with GA (6.1% vs. 3.8%; RR, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.13; P<0.001; I2=22.7%). A subgroup analysis for WE technique also demonstrated improved SPDR compared with the GA method (4.9% vs. 3.2%; RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.14; P=0.004; I2=6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

WT, particularly, the WE method results in improved SPDR. This technique should be encouraged in a clinical setting to detect these polyps to prevent interval colorectal cancer.

Impact of real-time use of artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  With the advent of deep neural networks (DNN) learning, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have investigated the influence of integrating AI in colonoscopy and its impact on adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably assess if the impact is statistically significant enough to warrant the adoption of AI -assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) in clinical practice. Methods  We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify RCTs that compared outcomes between AIAC and conventional colonoscopy (CC). The primary outcome was ADR. The secondary outcomes were PDR and total withdrawal time (WT). Results  Six RCTs (comparing AIAC vs CC) with 5058 individuals undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy were included in the meta-analysis. ADR was significantly higher with AIAC compared to CC (33.7 % versus 22.9 %; odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.55-2.00; I ²  = 28 %). Similarly, PDR was significantly higher with AIAC (45.6 % versus 30.6 %; OR 1.90, 95 %CI, 1.68-2.15, I ²  = 0 %). The overall WT was higher for AIAC compared to CC (mean difference [MD] 0.46 (0.00-0.92) minutes, I ²  = 94 %). Conclusions  There is an increase in adenoma and polyp detection with the utilization of AIAC.

Efficacy of Endocuff Vision compared to first-generation Endocuff in adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate in high-definition colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Recently, the newer Endocuff Vision (ECV) has been evaluated for improving colonoscopy outcome metrics such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). Due to lack of direct comparative studies between ECV and original Endocuff (ECU), we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate these outcomes. Methods  The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Sciences to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECV or ECU colonoscopy to high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. Direct as well as network meta-analyses comparing ADR and PDR were performed using a random effects model. Relative-risk (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Results  A total of 12 RCTs with 8638 patients were included in the final analysis. On direct meta-analysis, ECV did not demonstrate statistically improved ADR compared to HD colonoscopy (RR: 1.12, 95 % CI 0.99-1.27). A clinically and statistically improved PDR was noted for ECV compared to HD (RR: 1.15, 95 % CI 1.03-1.28) and ECU compared to HD (RR: 1.26, 95 % CI 1.09-1.46) as well as improved ADR (RR: 1.22, 95 % CI 1.05-1.43) was observed for ECU colonoscopy when compared to HD colonoscopy. These results were also consistent on network meta-analysis. Lower overall complication rates (RR: 0.14, 95 % CI 0.02-0.84) and particularly lacerations/erosions (RR: 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02-0.70) were noted with ECV compared to ECU colonoscopy. Conclusions  Although safe, the newer ECV did not significantly improve ADR compared to ECU and HD colonoscopy. Further device modification is needed to increase the overall ADR and PDR.

Retroflexion, a costless endoscopic maneuver, increases adenoma detection rate in the ascending colon

Background

Missed polyps during colonoscopy are considered an important factor for interval cancer appearance, especially in the ascending colon (AC). We evaluated the contribution of retroflexion to polyp and adenoma detection in the AC.

Methods

This prospective observational study included consecutive patients who underwent a complete colonoscopy between 06/2017 and 06/2018. The AC was examined in 2 phases: the first included 2 forward views from the hepatic flexure to the cecum; the second involved a retroflexion in the cecum, inspection up to the hepatic flexure and reinsertion to the cecum.

Results

The study included 655 patients, 628 (95.88%) with successful retroflexion (mean age: 62.5±10.8 years, 332 male). Indications for colonoscopy were screening in 33.28%, follow up in 36.03%, and diagnostic assessment in 30.69%. In total, 286 polyps and 220 adenomas were detected in the AC. Phase 1 identified 119 adenomas, yielding an adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the AC of 14.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.52-16.84%) while phase 2 identified 86 additional adenomas, improving the ADR in the AC to 22.75% (95%CI 19.54-25.96%; P<0.01). Adenoma miss rate was 39.1% (86/225) and per-patient adenoma miss rate was 11.15% (73/655). Retroflexion proved beneficial mainly in the upper third of the AC (odds ratio [OR] 4.29, 95%CI 1.84-11.56; P<0.01) and for small (<5 mm) adenomas (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.02-2.56; P=0.04). Multivariate analysis showed that age >60 years, detection of adenomas in forward views and the indication “follow up” influenced ADR during retroflexion.

Conclusion

Retroflexion is a simple and safe maneuver that increases the ADR in the AC and should complete a second forward view.

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Resection of Sessile Serrated Polyps 10 mm or Larger: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The best method for endoscopic resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSP) 10 mm or larger is unclear; studies report variable outcomes in comparison to conventional adenomas. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of resection of SSPs 10 mm or larger in size.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting data on endoscopic resection of SSPs 10 mm or larger, through May 31st, 2019. The primary outcome was rate of residual SSP, which was the rate of residual SSP found at the polypectomy site during the first follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were: technical success (rate of complete macroscopic resection), R0 resection rate (complete histological resection with absence of any polyp tissue at the lateral and deep margins after en-bloc resection), and adverse events (immediate or delayed bleeding and perforation). We performed IQR,group analyses for outcomes based on polyp size and resection techniques. Pooled proportion rates (%) or odds ratio with 95% CIs with heterogeneity (I²) and P < .05.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria: 911 patients (50.2% male; mean age, 62.8 ± 4.9 years) who underwent resection of 1137 SSPs (574 SSPs ≥ 20 mm) with a median polyp size of 19.4 mm (interquartile range, 15.9-29.6 mm). Follow-up information was available for 832 SSPs with a median follow-up duration of 12 months (interquartile range, 6-22.5 months). Piecemeal resection was performed in 58.5% SSPs. The pooled residual SSP rate was 4.3% (95% CI, 2%-6.5%). There was a higher residual SSP rate for polyps ≥ 20 mm compared to 10-19 mm (5.9% vs 1.2%; odds ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1-9.2; P = .049). Cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) had significantly lower rates of delayed bleeding (0 vs 2.3%; P = .03) and residual polyp rate (0.9% vs 5%; P=.01) compared to hot EMR, based on univariate analysis. In multi-variate analysis there was no difference in residual polyp rate. There was no significant difference in other outcomes based on the size or method of resection.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that SSPs ≥ 10 mm can be safely resected with low residual polyp rates. Polyp size ≥ 20 mm is a significant factor for residual polyp. Compared to hot EMR, cold EMR is associated with a lower rate of delayed bleeding. Randomized controlled trials comparing hot and cold resection are needed to standardize techniques and optimize outcomes.

The impact of deep convolutional neural network-based artificial intelligence on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy has gained popularity in current times. Recent trials have evaluated the efficacy of deep convolutional neural network (DCNN)-based AI system in colonoscopy for improving adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available studies to assess the impact of DCNN-based AI-assisted colonoscopy in improving the ADR and PDR.

METHODS

We queried the following database for this study: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, and Computers and Applied Sciences. We only included randomized controlled trials that compared AI colonoscopy to standard colonoscopy (SC). Our outcomes included ADR and PDR. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random effects model and DerSimonian-Laird approach for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of three studies with 2815 patients (1415 in SC group and 1400 in AI group) were included. AI colonoscopy resulted in significantly improved ADR (32.9% vs 20.8%, RR: 1.58, 95% CI 1.39-1.80, P = < 0.001) and PDR (43.0% vs 27.8%, RR: 1.55, 95% CI 1.39-1.72, P = < 0.001) compared with SC.

CONCLUSION

Given the results and limitations, the utility of AI colonoscopy holds promise and should be evaluated in more randomized controlled trials across different population, especially in patients solely undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose as improved ADR will ultimately help in reducing incident colorectal cancer.

Comparing endoscopic interventions to improve serrated adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Serrated lesions (sessile serrated adenomas/polyps and traditional serrated adenomas) owing to their subtle appearance and proximal location have a high miss rate. The objective of this study is to compare all the available endoscopic interventions for improving serrated adenoma detection rate (SADR) through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the available literature (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and WoS) from inception to 29 November 2019 to identify all the relevant randomized controlled trials. A total of 28 trials with 22 830 patients were included. The studies compared the efficacy of add-on devices (endocap, endocuff, endocuff vision, G-EYE, endorings, AmplifEYE), electronic chromoendoscopy (linked-color imaging, blue laser imaging, narrow band imaging), dye-based chromoendoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) and water-based techniques (WBT) with each other or high-definition colonoscopy. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P-values were calculated.

RESULTS

Direct meta-analysis demonstrated superiority for WBT (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.01-1.98), add-on devices (RR: 1.53, CI: 1.13-2.08), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.93, CI: 1.12-3.32) and endocuff vision (RR: 1.87, CI: 1.13-3.11) compared to high-definition colonoscopy. The results were consistent on network meta-analysis with chromoendoscopy as an additional modality for improving SADR (RR: 1.74, CI: 1.03-2.93).

CONCLUSION

In a network meta-analysis, add-on devices (particularly endocuff vision), narrow band imaging, WBT and chromoendoscopy were comparable to each other and improved SADR compared to high-definition colonoscopy.

Usefulness of narrow-band imaging for the detection of remnant sessile-serrated adenoma (SSA) tissue after endoscopic resection: the KASID multicenter study

BACKGROUND

A sessile-serrated adenoma (SSA) has a high risk for incomplete resection. Little is known regarding how to immediately detect remnant SSA tissue after endoscopic resection. We investigated the usefulness of narrow-band imaging (NBI) to detect remnant SSA tissue after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized study on 138 patients who had suspicious SSA on colonoscopy at five centers. After EMR on the suspected SSA determined on the endoscopic morphology, all lesions were randomized into two inspection methods, NBI and white light endoscopy (WLE), to detect remnant tissue on the resected margin. If remnant tissue was detected, an additional resection was performed. Finally, we obtained quadrant biopsies on the resection margin to evaluate the incomplete resection. The proportion of incomplete resection was calculated by combining the detection of remnant tissue and the positivity of SSA cells on the final quadrant biopsies. The primary outcome was the proportion of remnant tissue detection, and the secondary outcome was the proportion of incomplete resection of SSA.

RESULTS

In all, 145 lesions from 138 patients were removed. The diagnostic rate of SSA was 87.6% (127/145). After randomization, NBI inspection was performed on 69 lesions, and WLE inspection was performed on 76 lesions. The histologic diagnostic rate of SSA was 89.9% (62/69) in the NBI group and 85.5% (65/76) in the WLE group (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the detection of remnant tissue (12.9% (8/62) vs. 15.4% (10/65), p > 0.05), the proportion of SSA in remnant tissue (11.3% (7/62) vs. 12.3% (8/65), p > 0.05), or the proportion of incomplete resection (6.5 (4/62) vs. 10.8 (7/65), p > 0.05) between the NBI and WLE inspection groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

NBI was not superior to WLE for detecting remnant SSA tissue after EMR and could not decrease the proportion of incomplete resection of SSA.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2019

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's GIE Editorial Board reviewed original endoscopy-related articles published during 2019 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other leading medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual member were tallied to identify a consensus list of 10 topic areas of major advances in GI endoscopy. Individual board members summarized important findings published in these 10 areas of disinfection, artificial intelligence, bariatric endoscopy, adenoma detection, polypectomy, novel imaging, Barrett's esophagus, third space endoscopy, interventional EUS, and training. This document summarizes these "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2019.

Colorectal Cancer Screening for the Serrated Pathway

Serrated polyps are classified into hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated adenomas/polyps, and traditional serrated adenomas. Although all serrated polyps share characteristic colonic crypts serrations, distinguishing hyperplastic polyps from sessile serrated adenomas/polyps is challenging. Traditional serrated adenomas are cytologically dysplastic lesions; sessile serrated adenomas/polyps develop cytologic dysplasia as they progress to colorectal cancer. A flat and pale appearance of serrated polyps may make detection difficult. Endoscopic mucosal resection has higher rates of complete resection. Close surveillance is recommended for sessile serrated adenomas/polyps, sessile serrated adenomas/polyp with dysplasia, hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm, and traditional serrated adenomas.

How to increase proximal adenoma detection rate: a meta-analysis comparing water exchange, water immersion and air/CO2 insufflation methods for colonoscopy

Background

Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated a higher adenoma detection rate using the water exchange method (WE), compared to water immersion (WI) and air/CO₂ insufflation (ACI). Proximal adenomas have a high miss rate owing to their location and appearance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the WE and WI methods to the ACI method, with a primary focus on proximal adenoma detection rate.

Methods

The following databases were searched for our systematic review: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences. We included both randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The primary outcome was proximal adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes were right adenoma detection rate and cecal intubation rate.

Results

A total of 12 studies (17 arms) with 5660 patients (2260 ACI, 2281 WE, and 1119 WI) were included. A higher proximal adenoma detection rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.53; P=0.001) and right adenoma detection rate (RR 1.43, 95%CI 1.19-1.71; P≤0.001; I²=0%) were noted for the WE group compared to the ACI group. The WI group did not demonstrate a better detection rate of proximal or right adenomas.

Conclusions

The water exchange method for colonoscopy holds promise and should be encouraged in the clinical setting to increase proximal and right adenoma detection rates. This will in turn decrease the incidence of colorectal cancer.